Our presidency has been debased by a figure who seemingly has a bottomless appetite for destruction and division, and only a passing familiarity with how the constitution works. And our article i branch of government, the congress, thats me, is utterly supine. In the face of the moral vandalism that flows from the white house daily. Now, you might reasonably ask, wheres the good news in that . Well, simply put, we may have hit boston. This is it, if youve been wondering what the bottom looks like. This is what it look likes when you stress test all of the institutions that undergird our constitutional democracy at the same time. How did we arrive at such a moment of great peril wherein the president of the United States publicly threatens on fox friends, historians will note, to interfere in the administration of justice and seems to think that the office confers on him the ability to decide who and what gets investigated and who and what does not. And just this week, the president , offering an outlandish rationale, ordered an investigation into the investigation of the russian attack on our electoral process. Not to defend the country against future attacks, mind you, but to defend himself. Obviously, ordering investigations is not a legitimate use of president ial power. Rule of thumb. If the only acceptable outcome in a matter of law or justice is a result that is satisfactory to the leader, then you might be living in a democracy that is in trouble. If the leader attacks the legitimacy of any institution that does not pay him obeisance, say, the independent judiciary or the free press, you might live in a democracy that is in trouble. The rule of law is an elemental value, a value that preceded and gave rise to our constitution. It is not an ideology subject to the pendulum swings of politics or something to be given a thumbs up or a thumbs down during a call to your favorite morning show. It is the basis of our system of selfgovernment. America without the rule of law is no longer america. My sounding this alarm against the government that was elected under the republican banner and that calls itself conservative makes me no less republican or conservative. And opposing the president and much of what he stands for is not an act of apostasy, it is rather an act of fidelity. We will get through this, of course, but we are at the moment, we are in it. And we must face it squarely. Serving republican senator jeff flake of arizona speaking at Harvard Law School today, speaking in his usual amiable sort of easygoing style, but saying things that kind of scream off the page when you read them back. Rule of thumb, the only acceptable outcome in a matter of law or justice is a result that is satisfactory to the leader, you might live in a democracy that is in trouble. America without the rule of law is no longer america. How did we arrive at a moment of such peril . This is what the bottom looks like. This is a stress test of all the institutions that undergird our constitutional democracy, all at the same time. Now, senator flake, it should be noted, is making this eloquent pitch to stand and fight, to fundamentally oppose this president , because this president is a grave danger to the most fundamental core democratic assets of this country. But senator flake himself is quitting. He has already announced that he will be leaving the u. S. Senate this year, rather than even trying to run for reelection, and his voting record even since he has announced his retirement doesnt reflect any meaningful effort by him at all in his capacity as a u. S. Senator to try to stop what the president is trying to do with the government, so very stern and stirring words today from this republican senator, matched with a pattern of behavior on his part that doesnt quite square with the seriousness of the alarm that he is sounding. But going forward, these remarks by senator flake, i think, are Strong Enough that they may inflect the news cycle, at least for the next few das. At least on that point of the rule of law. The white house today confirmed that there really is going to be a meeting tomorrow at which the Justice Department and the fbi are going to be expected to hand over to two protrump republican congressional chairman some law confidential information about a confidential human source that the fbi used in the early stages of its investigation into whether or not the russian government and russian intelligence agencies were trying to penetrate Donald Trumps president ial campaign. To compliment the ongoing at the time russian government efforts to interfere with the president ial campaign to benefit trumps candidacy. And were going to be speaking with president ial historian Michael Beschloss later tonight. So, we will check with him for sure, but as far as we can tell, theres no historical precedent for anything like this. For the fbi and the Justice Department being directed to hand over information about a confidential human source. And that is the type of information that the fbi and the Justice Department hold basically sacred. And they have considered it to be a fundamental responsibility, as Law Enforcement institutions, to protect their sources. To protect that kind of information, because human sources are vital to the Law Enforcement function. And if the u. S. Government is seen as no longer protecting them or respecting the confidentiality of their service, then we wont get any anymore. Its also unprecedented for the fbi and the Justice Department to be forced to hand over any information, let alone confidential human source Law EnforcementSensitive Information about an investigation that is ongoing. But that is apparently whats going to happen tomorrow. Now, the white houses big concession on that remarkable plan for tomorrow is that they now say that some time after the memorial day recess, the same information on this human source might get briefed to the gang of eight, which is the bipartisan leadership of both houses of congress and the intelligence committees, which is how these things might conceivably be handled through normal channels, if there was anything normal about this. But even if that happens, thats not going to happen until later. Tomorrow they really are just giving this information to trey gowdy and devin nunes, which means, in effect, that the Justice Department and the fbi will be giving the president and his own Legal Defense team this previously secret information about an Ongoing Investigation, information about what evidence was collected on the Trump Campaign as the investigation was starting. Absolutely remarkable. So, well have more on that coming up this hour. I have to admit, though, that i am seeing developments like this in todays news through a slightly darker lens in this past 24 hours since speaking last night with the immediate past director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. He has this new book, facts and fears. And in that book, director clapper comes to this remarkable and blunt conclusion about how donald trump became president of the United States. Director clapper says, quote, of course the russian efforts affected the outcome of the president ial election. Surprising even themselves, they swung the election to a trump win. To conclude otherwise stretches logic, common sense and credulity to the breaking point. That that bombshell is the ultimate conclusion that jim clapper leads up to in his new book. Im sort of amazed that its not becoming a more dominant story in the news right now. This is the guy who was director of National Intelligence for the last seven years, saying that he has concluded that based on everything he has seen, the current president of the United States was only installed in office because of a successful russian intelligence operation. That the guy who is currently president right now would not be president if it were not for what russia did to put him there. The implication is that donald trump is not a legitimate president of the United States and that Hillary Clinton would and should be president now, and she only isnt because of an illegal operation that was mounted against us from outside our borders to keep her from winning that election and taking that position. That seems like a really freaking big deal. And it puts a very different light on what jeff flake is amiably shouting about today at Harvard Law School and what democrats are losing their minds about today and what the department of justice and the fbi are apparently being expected to do tomorrow. I mean, if the director of National Intelligence is right and this president is only in office because of an illegal foreign intelligence op that installed him in this office, then the Law Enforcement and counterintelligence effort to investigate that and to hold people accountable for that, thats not just some fight about ordinary crime and punishment, right . Thats not a typical washington scandal, even. Its a that is that makes it a critical nexus between both the rule of law and National Cover ren sovereignty, our ability to determine our own leaders without other countries messing with it. Efforts to impede that investigation or to pressure that investigation into blowing up. Through that lens, those efforts are almost matters of existential concern for us as a democracy. So, theres a lot to talk about on that front tonight. There is one story, though, that i want to put on your radar specifically, before we talk to Michael Beschloss, before we talk to adam schiff, before we get to these other stories that were going to get to tonight, theres one item i want to put on your radar thats from a bbc reporter named paul wood. Paul wood definitely not a household name, not a high profile person in u. S. News. Hes had a very interesting reporting history over the course of this particular scandal, though. The day after buzzfeed First Published the Christopher Steele dossier in january 2017, paul wood published a long piece at the bbc that seemed, honestly, a little woowoo at the time. Thats a term of art. Since then, though, what at least most of what mr. Wood wrote about in that piece the day after the dossier was published, most of it has borne out over time. Its been proven out by other reporting. Its claims that seemed controversial, even outlandish at the time have been borne out by other reporting and by congressional testimony and court documents. Paul wood reported the day after the dossier was published in january 2017 that the cia had been given information during the summer of 2016 by a Foreign Intelligence Agency that had obtained some puzzling information about contacts between the kremlin and the Trump Campaign. We didnt know that at the time, that paul wood reported it in january 2017. Outgoing cia director john brennan would later confirm it. He would later Tell Congress that that was, in fact, the case. But paul wood had it first, paul wood also reported at the time that the cia and the fbi had formed a joint working group, that among other things had been looking during the campaign at the connections between the Trump Campaign and russia. And specifically, theyd be looking at the question of whether russian money had made its way into the u. S. President ial election. Well, we didnt know anything than at the time, that paul wood first reported it, a year ago january, but ultimately, that was borne out. Its one of the things i ended up asking James Clapper about last night, because thats in his new book, too. He writes about that joint intelligence and Law Enforcement working group that met together in the United States during the president ial xaun campaign, just as paul wood reported last january. James clapper says in his book about that, quote, we all agreed that russia was behind an unprecedented aggressive multifaceted influence campaign, using cyber theft and cyber espionage, propaganda across the broadcast spectrum and all the largest social media platforms, and an influx of russian money, perhaps even launderred and funneled into campaigns. So paul wood had that in january 2017. Now, people involved in that Law Enforcement counterintelligence effort say yeah, that actually what they were looking at the time. So, bbc reporter paul wood was first to report a lot of that stuff that kind of seemed like crazy outlier reporting when he First Published it, because nobody else had the story yet. But all that was later proved to be true. Paul wood would go on several months later to report new information that was also later borne out by other reporting about Christopher Steele and steeles contact with the fbi and his years of providing credible and useful information on russia to various agencies within the u. S. Government. So, paul wood is this interesting reporter who has often been out ahead on this story, on the reporting around this particular scandal. Well, now today, as we are grappling with these rule of law questions in our government and these unprecedented encroachments on the fbi and the Justice Department during an Ongoing Investigation by a person who is the unjekt of that investigation, the president of the United States, now, in the midst of this unprecedented pressure we are seeing on Law Enforcement and counterintelligence, now this same reporter, paul wood, has a new report about something that seems to have maybe gone wrong. In the mueller investigation, or, at least an effort to try to slow things down or stop the flow of evidence to the mueller investigation. It had previously been reported by the New York Times earlier this month that the government of ukraine had ordered prosecutors and investigators in that country to stop giving information to, to stop cooperating with the special counsels office in this country, special counsels office has been investigating links between the Trump Campaign and russia. The special counsels office obviously has been prosecuting Trump Campaign chair Paul Manafort for a whole bunch of things related to his business arrangements with the prorussia magnificently corrupt previous government in the ukraine. Ukraines new government obviously had some information about Paul Manafort in those previous business dealings in that country, and they had previously been providing that information to the United States. Well, today paul wood is reporting at the bbc is that when ukraine made that decision that they would stop providing evidence to the mueller inquiry, they would stop helping effectively with the Paul Manafort prosecution, that decision by ukraines government followed almost immediately a visit to the white house by ukraines new president. A visit to the white house that was reportedly arranged on behalf of the ukrainian president by Michael Cohen, president trumps longtime personal attorney. Now nbc has not verified this reporting. But what paul wood of the bbc is reporting is that Michael Cohen was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by ukraine to arrange what amounted to a surprise inperson Oval Office Meeting between the president of ukraine and president trump. Paul wood reports that one week after the ukrainian president got that Oval Office Meeting, a meeting he so handsomely paid Michael Cohen for, he went back to ukraine, and within a week, he ordered prosecutors in his own government to cut off any help they were giving to robert mueller. One source in kiev telling bbc that after that Oval Office Meeting that was reportedly secretly bought with a large payment to Michael Cohen, quote, president poroshenko had given trump a gift, making sure that ukraine would find no more evidence to give the u. S. Inquiry into whether the Trump Campaign colluded with russia. This is obviously a firecracker of a story, right . For obvious reasons. Both the ukrainian president and lawyers for Michael Cohen are denying it categorically. Its interesting, though. President trumps lead lawyer on the russia matter didnt exactly deny it. He had, instead, a sort of strange response to this story being published today by the bbc. Rudy giuliani was asked to respond to this bbc report, and this is how he answered today. Quote, payments can be proved pretty easily. So, it would be silly to deny if it happened. Oh. And speaking about Michael Cohen, he said, quote, he never registered as a foreign agent, and as far as i